Live data from Hacker News

Building an economy simulator from scratch

thomassimon.dev

121–130 of 217 posts

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you take issue with this simulation? It applies heavily academic and simplistic rules around behavior. I like build up of it all to illustrate _simulating things_, but I think almost any traditional economics theory outside behavioral economics ought to be shelved for good.

I'd go the other way, behavioral economics ought to be shelved for good. Classic econ should come back, but with a stamp on its forehead that is is not science or a practice. https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/articles/the-death-of...

So what, we have no ground truth about economics? Is it just a close cousin of psychology?

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#122

May I present HAMURABI: https://www.atariarchives.org/basicgames/showpage.php?page=7... I had a lot of fun playing and modifying that game. Learned a lot about programming with it.

Was not expecting to see an Atari game produced in my home town today

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#124
post #116

I've long had the fantasy of an economics simulator given dwarf fortress levels of dedication and attention to detail. This might not be it, but it does warm my soul a bit.

Same. Dwarf fortress used to have an economy but they took it out. I tried to make something like this and burnt out, though I expect I'll pick it back up again at some point.

I believe that the economy aspect is going to be (eventually) re-worked entirely for a better simulation and to interact better with the existing game. The current development arc is going on several years at this point, so who knows when that might get addressed.

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#125
post #82

First, I really appreciate author trying to understand economy better in this way, even though this simulation is quite naive. I think everybody should do that. But as others have noted, it has no concept of capital, private property, and labor market. Therefore, it's not capitalism. It's not anarchism or communism either - it lacks flexibility of workers to do something else, or state planning telling workers to do…

> rich people don't want that

Where does this sentiment come from? And what do you define as rich? I have been acquainted with rich people for decades now and many of them seem pretty darn open to me.

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#128
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this happen?

These waterfront lifeguards have a lot more in common with EMTs and firefighters than have with the teenager who watches septagenarians do laps at your local pool, and they're compensated as such. No CEO or programmer dies in the line of duty, yet you can't throw a rock on this site without hitting thkse kinds of compensation.

Exactly, the average techbro's output working at a FAANG company likely ruins more lives than the average lifeguard saves. The compensation is clearly just.

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#129
post #37

The MONIAC built in the 1950s by Bill Phillips (of Phillips curve fame) attempted to model economic processes with coloured water (fluidic logic) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC

I just love whenever the roundworld equivalent of something I first encountered on the discworld pops up in front of me.

Re: Building an economy simulator from scratch

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go the other way, behavioral economics ought to be shelved for good. Classic econ should come back, but with a stamp on its forehead that is is not science or a practice. https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/articles/the-death-of...

So what, we have no ground truth about economics? Is it just a close cousin of psychology?

Economy is not that different from psychology, physics, or indeed any natural science. All try to predict how they would change depending on various factors and invent explanatory models that are never perfectly correct.

It’s just that some have had more apparent prediction success than others (non-coincidentally, it’s those that don’t directly involve humans as subjects), while some are liable to affect people’s lives in more direct and drastic ways (non-coincidentally, it’s those that do directly involve humans as subjects).

Post reply on HN